Ambiguity/Conflict Matrix
The Ambiguity/Conflict Matrix is a policy implementation heuristic developed by Richard E. Matland and published in a 1995 article published in the Journal of Administrative Research and Theory. Matland, Richard. "Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory April 1995 Link The ambiguity matrix is intended to shed light on the expected difficulties in implementation under different policy auspices and expectations. This frame was further used as an under-girding for Linda and Peter Deleon's alternative, democratic implementation approach (2002).Deleon, Peter & Deleon, Linda. "What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory ''4 October 2002 Link. Quotes and specifications that follow on this heuristic are taken from Deleon and Deleon treatment. Criticisms of Public Management '''Low Ambiguity/Low Conflict (Administrative Implementation)' - "A workaday world full of procedural or administrative policies and decisions whose implementations are basically designed and concluded without a hitch... The Implementations in this cell are basic exercises in traditional public administrative practices."Deleon, Peter & Deleon, Linda. "What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 4 October 2002 Link. Low Ambiguity/High Conflict (Political Implementation) — "There could be disagreement on the goals of the policy. Alternatively, if the players agree as to what ends to advance (say, public education), there could be great uncertainty as the best way to achieve those goals... In such an arena, implementation is perilous unless and until a compromise can somehow be forged. While discourse is typically a time-intensive approach, the total time and energy consumed might easily be reduced if it alleviates some of the friction that would otherwise occur later during implementation."Deleon, Peter & Deleon, Linda. "What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theor''4 October 2002 Link. '''High Ambiguity/Low Conflict (Experimental Implementation)' - "'outcomes will depend largely on which actors are active and most involved. The central principle driving this type of implementation is that contextual conditions dominate the process.'Matland, Richard. "Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory April 1995 Link The Clean Air Act of 1970 is a good example. There is general uncertainty (for instance, in goals, technology, and tactics), but the participants seem to agree among themselves as to the value of the policy... Generally (sooner or later) reaches an implementation solution."Deleon, Peter & Deleon, Linda. "What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 4 October 2002 Link. High Ambiguity/High Conflict (Symbolic Implementation) — "The most difficult for considering any implementation strategy. Conflict in Congress over the advisability of faith-based partnerships is a good example, mixing elements of the Constitution (church-state involvements) with uncertainty among the various religious factions as to their participation. It comprises such intractable cases that Matland can only refer to them as symbolic implementation, which appears to be code for "not much hope here." The policy implementation landscape is littered with these casualties (for example, almost the entire War on Poverty, Model Cities, or Superfundsponsored clean-ups)."Deleon, Peter & Deleon, Linda. "What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 4 October 2002 Link. References